Evaluating a non-linear asset pricing model on international data

The paper analyses the ability of a non-linear asset pricing model suggested by Dittmar [Dittmar, R.F., 2002. Non-linear pricing kernels, kurtosis preference, and the cross-section of equity returns. Journal of Finance 57, 369-403] to explain the returns on international value and growth portfolios. For comparison we use competing pricing models such as the ICAPM, the exchange rate risk augmented ICAPM and the international two-factor model proposed by Fama and French [Fama, E.F., French, K. R., 1998. Value versus growth: The international evidence. Journal of Finance 53, 1975-1999]. All models are evaluated both unconditionally and conditionally. The models are evaluated by applying the Hansen and Jagannathan distance measure, and we also employ several alternative measures to ensure a robust comparison of the models. We find support for the model of Dittmar [Dittmar, R.F., 2002. Non-linear pricing kernels, kurtosis preference, and the cross-section of equity returns. Journal of Finance 57, 369-403]. Evaluated conditionally, this model successfully passes all the different diagnostic tests performed in the analysis.     

Macroeconomic risk and the cross-section of stock returns

We develop a conditional version of the consumption capital asset pricing model (CCAPM) using the conditioning variable from the cointegrating relation among macroeconomic variables (dividend yield, term spread, default spread, and short-term interest rate). Our conditioning variable has a strong power to predict market excess returns in the presence of competing predictive variables. In addition, our conditional CCAPM performs approximately as well as Fama and French’s (1993) three-factor model in explaining the cross-section of the Fama and French 25 size and book-to-market sorted portfolios. Our specification shows that value stocks are riskier than growth stocks in bad times, supporting the risk-based story.     

Some extensions of the CAPM for individual assets

There is ample evidence that stock returns exhibit non-normal distributions with high skewness and excess kurtosis. Experimental evidence has shown that investors like positive skewness, dislike extreme losses and show high levels of prudence. This has motivated the introduction of the four-moment capital asset pricing model (CAPM). This extension, however, has not been able to successfully explain average returns. Our paper argues that a number of pitfalls may have contributed to the weak and conflicting empirical results found in the literature. We investigate whether conditional models, whether models that use individual stocks rather than portfolios and whether models that extend both the moment and factor dimension can improve on more traditional static, portfolio-based, mean–variance models. More importantly, we find that the use of a scaled coskewness measure in cross-section regression is likely to be spurious because of the possibility for the market skewness to be close to zero, at least for some periods. We provide a simple solution to this problem.     

Beta,size, book-to-market equity and returns: A study based on UK data

This paper examines the role of beta, size and book-to-market equity as competing risk measurements in explaining the cross-sectional returns of UK securities for the period July 1980 through June 2000. The methodology of [Fama, E., French, K., 1992. The cross-section of expected stock returns. Journal of Finance 47, 427–467] and [Pettengill, G., Sundaram, S., Mathur, I., 1995. The conditional relation between beta and returns. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 30, 101–116] is adopted. Results show that, when adopting the methodology of [Pettengill, G., Sundaram, S., Mathur, I., 1995. The conditional relation between beta and returns. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 30, 101–116], where data is segmented between up and down markets, a significant relationship is found between beta and returns even in the presence of size and book-to-market equity. Size is not found to be a significant risk variable, whereas book-to-market equity is found to be priced by the market and is thus a significant determinant of security returns. This is the case irrespective of the methodology adopted.     

Conditional extreme risk,black swan hedging,and asset prices

Motivated by the asset pricing theory with safety-first preference, we introduce and operationalize a conditional extreme risk (CER) measure to describe expected stock performance conditional on a small-probability market downturn (black swan). We document a significant CER premium in the cross-section of expected returns. We also demonstrate that CER explains the premia to downside beta, coskewness, and cokurtosis. CER provides distinct information regarding black swan hedging that cannot be captured by co-crash-based tail dependence measures. As we find that the pricing effect is stronger among black swan hedging stocks, this distinction helps explain the absence of premium to tail dependence.     

Do relative leverage and relative distress really explain size and book-to-market anomalies?

In a capital asset pricing model (CAPM) framework, Ferguson and Shockley [2003. Equilibrium “anomalies”. Journal of Finance 58, 2549–2580] propose two factors constructed on relative leverage and relative distress, and show that the two factors subsume Fama and French's [1993. Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds. Journal of Financial Economics 33, 3–56] factors constructed on size and book-to-market (BM) in explaining the cross-sectional average returns of the 25 size-BM portfolios. Based on tests on individual securities, we find that all factors fail to fully explain the common asset-pricing anomalies. In the spirit of Merton's [1973. An intertemporal capital asset pricing model. Econometrica 41, 867–887] intertemporal CAPM, we propose an augmented five-factor model, which incorporates Ferguson and Shockley's [2003. Equilibrium “anomalies”. Journal of Finance 58, 2549–2580] factors into the Fama–French three-factor model. The empirical results show that a simple conditional version of the augmented model is able to explain most well-known asset-pricing anomalies.     

Implied volatility and future portfolio returns

Prior studies find that the CBOE volatility index (VIX) predicts returns on stock market indices, suggesting implied volatilities measured by VIX are a risk factor affecting security returns or an indicator of market inefficiency. We extend prior work in three important ways. First, we investigate the relationship between future returns and current implied volatility levels and innovations. Second, we examine portfolios sorted on book-to-market equity, size, and beta. Third, we control for the four Fama and French [Fama, E., French, K., 1993. Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds. Journal of Financial Economics 33, 3–56.] and Carhart [Carhart, M., 1997. On persistence in mutual fund performance. Journal of Finance, 52, 57–82.] factors. We find that VIX-related variables have strong predictive ability.     

Evaluating asset pricing models in the Korean stock market

This paper evaluates and compares asset pricing models in the Korean stock market. The asset pricing models considered are the CAPM, APT-motivated models, the Consumption-based CAPM, Intertemporal CAPM-motivated models, and the Jagannathan and Wang conditional CAPM model. By using various test portfolios as well as individual stocks, we conduct time-series tests and cross-sectional regression tests based on individual t-tests, the joint F-tests, the Hansen and Jagannathan (1997) distance, and R-squares. Overall, the Fama and French (1993) five-factor model performs most satisfactorily among the asset pricing models considered in explaining the intertemporal and cross-sectional behavior of stock returns in Korea. The Fama and French (1993) three-factor model, the Chen et al. (2010) three-factor model, and the Campbell (1996) model are the next. The results indicate that the two bond portfolios, term spread and default spread, play an important role in explaining stock returns in Korea.     

TRANSITORY MARKET STATES AND THE JOINT OCCURRENCE OF MOMENTUM AND MEAN REVERSION

In this article we derive and investigate the implications of the Fama–French and Poterba–Summers model—in which the market price of equity contains permanent and temporary components—to explain cross‐sectional differences in equity risk premia and returns. Shocks to the transitory component are regarded a Merton risk factor. We obtain estimates from a simple Kalman decomposition of the market price. The transitory component estimate is used in a conditional capital asset pricing model to test implications of the model related to predictability, cross‐sectional performance, and the existence of momentum and mean reversion.     

Asymmetric Volatility,Skewness, and Downside Risk in Different Asset Classes: Evidence from Futures Markets

This study examines the cross‐sectional variation of futures returns from different asset classes. The monthly returns are positively correlated with downside risk and negatively correlated with coskewness. The asymmetric volatility effect generates negatively skewed returns. Assets with high coskewness and low downside betas provide hedges against market downside risk and offer low returns. The high returns offered by assets with low coskewness and high downside betas are a risk premium for bearing downside risk. The asset pricing model that incorporates downside risk partially explains the futures returns. The results indicate a unified risk perspective to jointly price different asset classes.     

Are extreme returns priced in the stock market? European evidence

This paper revisits some recently found evidence in the literature on the cross-section of stock returns for a carefully constructed dataset of euro area stocks. First, we confirm recent results for US data and find evidence of a negative cross-sectional relation between extreme positive returns and average returns after controlling for characteristics such as momentum, book-to-market, size, liquidity and short term return reversal. We argue that this is the case because these stocks have lottery-like characteristics, which is attractive to certain investors. Also, these stocks tend to be very volatile so that arbitrageurs are discouraged from correcting potential mispricing. As a consequence, these stocks are often overpriced and hence face lower expected returns. Second, when we control for extreme returns, the recently found negative relationship between idiosyncratic risk and future returns is less robust. In our models, after adding maximum returns, the relationship is insignificant and sometimes even positive. We also find that idiosyncratic skewness and coskewness play an important role for asset pricing, as predicted by several theoretical models.     

SMB — Arousal,disproportionate reactions and the size-premium

This paper examines SMB (small minus big), the mimicking portfolio in Fama and French's [Fama, E., French, K., 1993. Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds, Journal of Financial Economics 33, 3–56] three-factor asset pricing model. We do not examine whether SMB is a factor in explaining the cross-section of returns. This paper's focus is why S is greater than B. After controlling for market-pervasive effects, we argue that the small-firm premium is driven by both investors' emotional arousal (proxied by the turnover ratio) and their disproportionate reactions to arousing stimuli.     

The Performance of Hedge Fund Strategies and the Asymmetry of Return Distributions

We present hedge fund performance estimates that adjust for stale prices, Fama‐French risk factors and skewness. We contrast these new performance estimates with traditional performance measures. Using three‐factor models to adjust for staleness in prices and to incorporate Fama‐French factors along with the Harvey‐Siddique (2000) two‐factor model that incorporates skewness, we find that for the period 1990–2003, all hedge fund categories achieve above average performance when measured against an aggregate market index. More significantly, however, when we estimate performance at the individual hedge fund level, we discover that only 40 to 47% of the funds are shown to achieve an above average performance over that time period depending on the model used. These results have important implications for investors, endowments and pensions when they choose hedge fund managers.     

New Evidence on Sources of Leverage Effects in Individual Stocks

I test Black's leverage effect hypothesis on a panel of U.S. stocks from 1997 to 2012. I find that negative stock return innovations increase the future volatility of equity returns by about 36% more than positive ones. There is a strong and positive relation between variation in the size of these leverage effects and variation in the firm's use of debt. I uncover this relation by applying the Fama/French/Carhart 4‐factor asset pricing model in the exponential generalized autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity mean equation and by using panel data to control for firm‐ and time‐invariant unobservables via first differences and two‐way fixed effects.     

Low-Risk Anomalies?

This paper shows that low-risk anomalies in the capital asset pricing model and in traditional factor models arise when investors require compensation for coskewness risk. Empirically, we find that option-implied ex ante skewness is strongly related to ex post residual coskewness, which allows us to construct coskewness factor-mimicking portfolios. Controlling for skewness renders the alphas of betting-against-beta and betting-against-volatility insignificant. We also show that the returns of beta- and volatility-sorted portfolios are driven largely by a single principal component, which in turn is explained largely by skewness.     

The cross section of cashflow volatility and expected stock returns

I show that historical cashflow volatility is negatively related to future returns cross-sectionally. The negative association is large; economically meaningful; long-lasting up to five years; robust to known return-informative effects of size, value, price and earnings momentums and illiquidity; and extends to both systematic and idiosyncratic cashflow volatilities. Using the standard deviations of cashflow to sales and of cashflow to book equity as proxies for cashflow volatility, the least volatile decile portfolio outperforms the most volatile decile portfolio by 13% a year relative to the Fama–French four factors. The cashflow volatility effect is closely related to the idiosyncratic return volatility effect documented in Ang et al. [Ang, A., Hodrick, R.J., Xing, Y. and Zhang, X. “The cross-section of volatility and expected returns.” Journal of Finance, 51 (2006), 259–299.]. However, in portfolios simultaneously sorted on both cashflow and return volatilities, and in cross sectional regressions of returns at the firm level, these two effects neither drive out nor dominate each other. While the pricing of idiosyncratic cashflow volatility represents an anomaly against the traditional asset pricing theories, the pricing of historical cashflow uncertainty sheds light on potential fundamental risks embodied in the Fama–French HML and SMB factors.     

Cross‐sectional Tests of Conditional Asset Pricing Models: Evidence from the German Stock Market

We study the performance of conditional asset pricing models and multifactor models in explaining the German cross‐section of stock returns. We focus on several variables, which (according to previous research) are associated with market expectations on future market excess returns or business cycle conditions. Our results suggest that the empirical performance of the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) can be improved when allowing for time‐varying parameters of the stochastic discount factor. A conditional CAPM using the term spread explains the returns on our size and book‐to‐market sorted portfolios about as well as the Fama‐French three‐factor model and performs best in terms of the Hansen‐Jagannathan distance. Structural break tests do not necessarily indicate parameter instability of conditional model specifications. Another major finding of the paper is that the Fama‐French model – despite its generally good cross‐sectional performance – is subject to model instability. Unconditional models, however, do a better job than conditional ones at capturing time‐series predictability of the test portfolio returns.     

A Comparison of the Efficacy of Liquidity,Momentum, Size and Book‐to‐Market Value Factors in Equity Pricing on a Heterogeneous Sample: Evidence from Asia

This paper compares the size and book‐to‐market value factors of Fama and French (1993) alongside Momentum of Jagadeesh and Titman ( 1993 ) with two Liu ( 2006 ) liquidity factors formed from 1 year rebalancing and 1 month rebalancing respectively. A heterogeneous and comprehensive sample of the top blue chip stocks of all national Asian equity markets with further differentiation undertaken between sub samples formed for Japan only and Asia excluding Japan for period January 2000 to August 2014. Our empirical results suggest that multifactor time invariant pricing models based on augmented capital asset pricing model (CAPM) framework are ineffective in explaining the cross section of stock returns in the presence of significant inter and intra‐market segmentation. However an alternative model specification based on a time varying parameter specification and using same sets of factors yields significant enhancements in explaining cross section of stock returns across universe. We find that momentum factor largely lacks significance while a time varying two factor model, based on CAPM plus liquidity factor, is optimal. The liquidity factor being that of Liu (2006) and annually rebalanced. Our findings are important for investment managers seeking appropriate factors and modelling techniques to hedge against risks as well as firm's financial managers seeking to reduce costs of equity capital.     

Is Information Risk a Determinant of Asset Returns?

We investigate the role of information–based trading in affecting asset returns. We show in a rational expectation example how private information affects equilibrium asset returns. Using a market microstructure model, we derive a measure of the probability of information–based trading, and we estimate this measure using data for individual NYSE–listed stocks for 1983 to 1998. We then incorporate our estimates into a Fama and French (1992) asset–pricing framework. Our main result is that information does affect asset prices. A difference of 10 percentage points in the probability of information–based trading between two stocks leads to a difference in their expected returns of 2.5 percent per year.